} Yugoslay

By BERT WHYTE

MOSCOW
yes of the world are
On the international

Communists which
Moscow on June 5th.

The e

0

ttiven® 300 leading represen-

of 75 Communist and
Or) ’ ; . an
Se Parties are in attend-
Clude Tties not taking part in-
© Chinese, Albanian,
is and Japanese.
of the Overwhelming majority
danse nes are expected to
SUbmitte d he draft documents
the pre to the conference by
Paratory commission.
the yep TtHes present are agreed
Y task facing Communists

aty i ua ue rally all revolution-

inperiat; in the struggle against
is i
Ndence a for peace, inde-

the peoples, demo-
ae socialism E
fe _Welcoming speech at
egy ging of the conference
Brezhne €neral Secretary Leonid
0 ane Stressed that the unity
con cats “is an important
imperial; of success in the anti-
e, St revolutionary strug-
of new Important prerequisite
Unity Worrries for socialism.”
esseq sa been the theme ex-
ing the ath many speakers dur-
tional Tst days of the interna-
Unites pPetley~ ‘That — which
€ Communists is. incon-
: conser that what
Gomyjea i. . Said Wladislaw
“Co of Poland.
act ;.Munist parties have to
Conditions of struggle
Prop a ‘le the most diverse
tt, Jgn®” Said Waldeck Roch-
Muni 3 of the French Com-
is diy ary delegation. “But
divisig €rsity should not mean
indepen’ just as the requisite
Shou} Mdence of each party
onal lead to isolation or
Which oo: The — differences
issue ae on this or that
stances ould under no circum-
Ove gain the upper hand
ties, What unites all our par-
No se differences should in
Ble ¢ 3 hamper the joint strug-
differs our common aims. These
0 alee can and must be
Of a me through an exchange
of j peeeence and a comparison
Thultilats” through bilateral or
i €ral_ meetings, through
conferences and,
through cooperation
imperiation nem struggle against
ferent Second day of the con-
th Brezhney made a leng-
Soyjgrcech on behalf of the
My
5 f © international situation
the cued to some problems of
evotag maunist movement and
a Considerable time to
Ship Bod taken by the leader-
China the Communist Party of
Steir Which, he said, “offers a
tha, -& example of the harm
-F Can be done to the com-
b menuse of the Communists
minis patture from Marxism-
tern ism and a break with in-
Ravonalism.”
Ciple crating the Soviet prin-
State Of peaceful coexistence of
Cig) <. Utespective of their so-
«sy Stem, Brezhnev said:
€aceful coexistence does
ideo €xtend to the struggle of
g
Beet categorically. At the
Sim
bet

Ist

Ply to the absence of war
Ween socialist and capital-
States. Observance .of the

t delegation. After review- .

logies—this must be stress-.

© time, it is not reduced.

peaceful coexistence principle
opens up broader possibilities
for expanding relations between
them. We refer to the settle-
ment, at the negotiating table,
of international problems, to
the coordination of measures
for reducing the war danger and
easing international tensions,
and also to mutually advan-
tageous economic, trade, scien-
tific, technical and cultural
ties.”

‘At a press conference given

by Gus Hall on June 8 the
American party leader, in reply
to a question from Henry Kamm
of the New York Times, said
that, “Czechoslovakia is not a
sharp issue at this conference,
in spite of the fact that there
are parties which are not in full
agreement.” So far only the
Australian report has mentioned
Czechoslovakia by name, _al-
though it is expected that Brit-

ish and Italian party spokesmen

will also comment on the Czech
situation.

Laurie Aarons, the Australian
party leader, stated that his
party held the view that, “The
August 1968 intervention was
wrong,” and that “the continued
presence of troops is wrong.” He
continued: ‘“‘We have said, and
we say again, that the interven-
tion harmed our cause, the
struggle for a socialist world.
Its impact was deep, its conse-
quences far-reaching. They will
not be easily overcome. This
will be the more difficult so
long as unequal relations con-
tinue. Others may disagree. We
hope our debate can develop on

the level of principle and
theory.” :
Pravda published the Aus-

tralian report and it was mime-
ographed and distributed along
with other speeches at the press
centre.

At his press conference Gus
Hall made the point that, “most
likely differences and divergen-
cies will appear between Com-
munist parties in the future—

but_I think they will be handled —

differently from now on.”

He said his party fully sup-
ported the actions taken by five

Warsaw Pact countries in rela-:

tion to Czechoslovakia.

The results of the conference,
Hall said, will be measured in
concrete life and reality. “My
opinion is that it will contribute
to greater unity among the
parties, greater militancy and
greater mobilization of all forc-
es in the struggle against im-
perialism. I think life has pre-
sented for this epoch the elimi-
nation of imperialism, and that
is what this conference is all
about.”

At Tribune press time the
leader of the Canadian delega-
tion, William Kashtan, had not
yet taken the floor. He had,
however, become known to
millions of Soviet people
through the medium of a tele-
vision interview in which he as-
sessed the significance of the
conference as a _ tremendous
step toward unity of Communist
parties and  anti-imperialist
forces.

Unprecedented unity
at British TU Congress

By JOHN WILLIAMSON

The emergency Trades Coun-
cil Congress, held in Croydon—
significant in itself because it is
only the second in 100 years of

- TUC history —was the focal

point recently of the overwhelm-
ing opposition of the British
workers to the government’s in-
tended anti-strike laws. ,

By a vote of 8,252,000 to 359,-
000, the 900 delegates expressed,
with an unprecedented: unity,
their “unalterable” opposition to
the government’s proposed penal
clauses. The minority was the
Electricians’ Union, led by the
renegade communist, Les Can-
non.

By substantial majorities it
also approved some of the gov-
ernment’s proposals and then
adopted its own TUC alternative
program for helping to settle
disputes. On this latter, there
exist sharp differences and one
million votes. were cast against
it.

Acting TUC general secretary,
Vic Feather gave the report. He
said, “No one can seriously be-
lieve that the loss of . . . the
equivalent of one day’s output
in every four years of work is
really stopping Britain from
reaching its economic aims.”
Engineers’ Union leader, Hugh
Scanlon warned that if the gov-
ernment went ahead with the
penal clause “then it would need
more than resolutions to defeat
them.”

The Transport Union’s retiring
general secretary, Frank Cousins
warned they would “fight+for
the interests of our members
against anybody.” The Draughts-
men’s Union leader, George
Doughty also opposed the alter-
native TUC proposals and the
idea that. there were “positive”
features in the government’s
proposals. He said, “No matter
how one wraps it up, threats of
expulsion are also contained in
the TUC document.” The Min-
ers’ delegate, Joe Whelan got a
big cheer when he called for a
TUC-directed general strike if
the government goes ahead. He
called the White Paper ‘‘a Tory
document.”

The mass movement which
compelled the holding of this
emergency TUC continued to
express itself in a mass lobby
of 2,000 elected representatives

outside the hall. They represent-

ed union branches, trades coun-

cils and shop stewards from all

parts of the country.

Union banners included the
Scottish miners, printers, vehicle
builders, post office workers, and
trades councils from London,
Liverpool, Brighton, etc., and
the Liverpool Labor Party. Their
central demand was for a 24-
hour national strike —not just
resolutions. They voted for a
mass lobby of Parliament and a
24-hour national strike on the
day of the anti-strike bill’s sec-
ond reading in Parliament, unless
the TUC itself takes action.

While the near unanimous
rejection of the penal clauses by
the TUC is significant, its effec-
tive sharp édge was dulled by
the negative features of some of
its own alternative proposals.

The events of the preceding
three weeks are decisive in un-
derstanding the events at the
emergency TUC at Croydon.

In preparation for this emer-
gency TUC, the holding of which
its General Council had rejected

less than a month ago, the policy
document ‘Program for Action”
was sent to all unions. Many
unions held emergeney delegate:
conferences, meetings of their
TUC delegations, or National
Committee meetings to deter-
mine their attitude towards this
document.

Projected by the General
Council as an alternative to the
government’s White Paper “In
Place of Strife’, it reflected the
militant opposition of the work-
ers. It took.a firm, determined
stand against the government’s
intention to impose penalties on
workers and trade unions in
connection with industrial dis-
putes.

It exposes the government's
distortion of the strike picture
and correctly places the respon-
sibility on the arrogant, unilater-
al actions of management which
“Jeaves work people” no alter-
native but “strike action.” It
also has some useful proposals
to meet the vexatious problem
of inter-union jurisdictional dis-
putes and, in a section dealing
with shop stewards, emphasizes
the importance of shop stewards
and combine committees and the
need to consult such committees
before agreements are finalized.

Unfortunately, under pres-
sure from the right-wing Labor
Government the General Council
document had two major weak-
nesses. First, it includes propos-
als giving the TUC itself power
to intervene in “unofficial”
strikes, whether asked to or not,
and the authority to penalize
unions up to the point of sus-
pension if they do not themselves
secure compliance by their
members to TUC recommenda-
tions to settle or call off such
strikes.

This recommendation was
fought against by the Commun-
ists and many other left-wing
militants. Nevertheless, a ma-
jority of left trade union officials
on and off the TUC General
Council capitulated to this, ar-
guing it was the lesser evil to
government intervention. How-
ever, the two largest unions—
transport and engineering—
qualified their support of this
section of the TUC policy docu-
ment by making it conditional
that the TUC would not go ahead

‘with its own disciplinary pro-

posals if the government refuses
to drop its penal clauses.

The second weakness was the
absence of proposed action by
the nine million trade uninists
under TUC leadership. Mere op-
position in resolutions does not
move the government. Only the
strikes of the workers on Febru-
ary 27 and May 1, compelled
delay. and the holding of the
emergency TUC. -

In the period leading up to
Croydon there was a growing

movement for a 24-hour strike.
This was initiated by the Scot-
tish Area Committee of the
Miners’ Union. While it got
much support from workers in
the factories and union branches,
from an important conference of
over 200 delegates called by the
Lancashire Federation of Trades
Councils, and from the London
Co-ordinating Committee of
Trade Unions, the only large
national union to support it was
the Society of Graphical and
Allied Trades, the largest print
union in the country.

One week before the Croydon
Emergency TUC an _ important
“National Conference Against
Anti-Union Legislation,” attend-
ed by 956 delegates was held in
the Birmingham Town Hall. In
the centre of Britain’s “auto-
land,” this conference declared
if the government did not with-
draw its proposed anti-strike
legislation it favored industrial
action.

Addressing the conference,
AEF president Hugh Scanlon
declared, if the government goes
ahead with its penal clauses, ‘we
could not continue to merely
pass resolutions” but would have
“to take more active” action.
The newly-elected assistant gen-
eral secretary of the TGWU,
Harry Unwin, addressing the
conference said, “We have the
numbers to act, we have the
leadership to meet the challenge,
we only need a concerted will.”

In the run-up period before
Croydon, practically every union
went on record to reject the anti-
strike legislation of the govern-
ment. The Labor Party’s national
executive opposed it. The Trade
Union Committee of Labor MP’s
rejected the penal clauses by 16
to 14 votes. More than 60 Labor
MP’s sent a letter to Parliamen-
tary Labor Party chairman,
Douglas Houghton, urging the
dropping of the legislation.
Houghton himself made a simi-
lar public appeal to Wilson and
Castle.

Despite the appeasement poli-
cy of the Emergency TUC re-
garding strikes and its proposal
to do the job for the Labor Gov-
ernment, there is no basis for
believing Wilson and Mrs. Castle
will withdraw their projected
penal clauses against strikes. On
every occasion both have con-
tinued their arrogant attacks on
the workers, holding them re-
sponsible for Britain’s economic
troubles, while giving every help
to monopoly capitalism and its
imperialist policies, simultane-
ously ‘reducing the purchasing
power of the people and attack-
ing the social services at home.

INngcrRINsto

eee

FOREMAN r

Ni

: _ PACIFIC TRIBUNE=JUNE, 18;,1969--Page.5,

t teuy
rere. IMF ud oa 4

} spp4-—

Poel £1 AVL —_AMUAINT BHDAS